Parsec TPM endorsements #134
Conversation
Signed-off-by: Thomas Fossati <[email protected]>
thomas-fossati
force-pushed
the
parsec-tpm-endorsements
branch
from
930c146
to
f0a8496
Compare
| "scheme": "PARSEC_TPM", | ||
| "type": "REFERENCE_VALUE", | ||
| "attributes": { | ||
| "parsec-tpm.alg-id": 1, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For consistency with Measurement Description (new change from #133 ) we should keep the Algorithm as a string.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we need consistency between the evidence and provisioning side of the same scheme.
| @@ -0,0 +1,173 @@ | |||
| // Copyright 2023 Contributors to the Veraison project. | |||
| // SPDX-License-Identifier: Apache-2.0 | |||
| package parsec_tpm | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As per:https://go.dev/blog/package-names?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Package names
Good package names are short and clear. They are lower case, with no under_scores or mixedCaps.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am following the convention we established in the scheme folder.
| } | ||
| o.instance = &i | ||
| } | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should have some optional Vendor or Model as text associated to class
to describe an Attester, in addition to UEID()?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This could be future work. Tracked in #139
Fix CCC-Attestation/attested-tls-poc#5